Why Flappy Bird Is / Was So Successful And Popular But So ...€¦ · single largest asset that a...

Why Flappy Bird Is / Was So Successful And Popular But So Difficult To Learn: A Cognitive Teardown Of The User Experience (UX)

Charles Mauro

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/author/cmauromauronewmedia-

com/), February 12, 2014

Promised simplicity, delivered deep complexity

One of the fascinating conundrums in the science of man-machine

design is the human mind’s complete inability to accurately assess the

operational complexity of a given user interface by visual inspection. It

turns out the human operating system is hardwired to judge the

complexity of almost anything based on visual/spatial arrangement of

elements on whatever you are looking at. This is especially true for

screen-based interfaces. Simply put, the more elements presented to a

user on the screen, the higher the judged initial complexity. The opposite

is also true. A very simple screen leads to an assumption of simplicity.

The key point here is that the actual cognitive complexity of a given UX

solution cannot be judged by visual inspection… nothing is actually

further from the truth. Yet we do it every time we open a new app, visit a

website, or load new software.

In the course of consulting in the science of human factors

engineering I have constantly run into this problem. It is so

ubiquitous that I have called it the simplicity/complexity

deceit (SCD). The problem is everywhere we turn today: in

our software, in our automobiles, in our kitchen appliances,

in our media systems, and yes, even in the apps like Flappy

Bird which we download for minimal cost or even free. The

simplicity/complexity deceit can be reduced to a simple

issue: the difference between visual complexity and

cognitive complexity. Yes, it is entirely possible to create a

user interface that appears upon first impression to be

simple yet after slightly more use-cycles becomes

hideously complex if one wishes to achieve higher levels of

productivity with the system.

But this simplicity/complexity deceit UX experience actually has a very

large and persistent marketing dimension. The benefit of an initial

impression of simplicity has well understood benefits that, not

surprisingly, have become the mantra of contemporary UX design.

Under this approach, sometimes known as minimalist UX, designers

strip off every aspect of the user interface that adds graphic complexity.

However, rarely, do these same designers ask the question: to what

extent does this graphic simplification contribute to operational

complexity. Pick up almost any app or software product today that is

based on the latest operating systems and one is struck by the promise

of simplicity but surprised by the actual level of complexity. Some UX

solutions take this to a very high level including Twitter, Facebook,

Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest and tens of thousands of iPhone and

Android apps. Nothing in recent history takes this to a higher level than

the creator of the hugely successful Flappy Bird game. In this free app-

based game we have the very poster child of simplicity/complexity

deceit. Here is why.

The theory

On a basic structural level, Flappy Bird is a case study in

skill acquisition theory and a very interesting one at that.

Specifically, it is well known from decades of research that

acquiring almost any skill including learning to use devices

like the seemingly simple interactive game Flappy Bird

adheres generally to the Power Law of Practice

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law_of_practice). In a

nutshell, the law states essentially that as we practice, our

ability to improve generally increases relatively rapidly but

past a certain point there is almost no improvement in

performance with repeated attempts. This is of course best

revealed in the actual power law distribution curve that

shows the well known “long tail.” The interesting aspect of

the power law of learning is that the actual progression

toward a fully acquired skill can be very brief or

exceedingly long depending on the task and related

performance goals. But the general pattern remains

essentially the same.

Although most UX designers do not realize it, this simple concept is at

the heart of user experience design for all the high tech devices that

populate our busy lives. Furthermore, one can see by simple deduction

that creating a UX solution that promises rapid skill acquisition but ends

up requiring a huge amount of effort creates a measure frustration that

can have a big impact on how users feel about a given product,

company or brand. This maps back the concept the of

Simplicity/Complexity Deceit model discussed above. It is no mystery

that a designer can have a dramatic and measurable impact on the

shape of the user’s learning curve based on how they design the user

interface between man and machine, or in the case of Flappy Bird, the

interface between the game player and the game. If a UX designer is

unaware of basic cognitive science including an understanding of what

makes things complex to learn and use, this can be a major problem.

Whether the designer/programmer of Flappy Bird knew anything about

these factors is conjecture, but what we do know is that by either insight

or accident they created one of the most extreme examples of

simplicity/complexity deceit. This is another way of saying this simple

game design creates staggering levels of cognitive complexity by

tweaking a few well understood variables related again to skill

acquisition theory.

Here is a short list of factors based on my experience

applying the science of human factors engineering to user

interface design problems in which rapid skill acquisition is

a primary objective. This is by no means comprehensive,

but factors that are easy to understand in the context of

the game’s interaction model and reward system.

Transfer

When working with clients to help solve problems related

to the usability of a given UX solution, the first question

that I receive is nearly always “What is the fastest and

easiest way to make the product/software/app easy to

use?” The answer is always a surprise to those who ask.

The fastest and least costly methodology for solving any

complex interface design problem is to make the new

system familiar to the users from the point of first

interaction to the final task objective.

What we mean by this in simple cognitive science terms is

that there is an imperative to capitalize on the prior

learning of users in the design of the new system. The

single largest asset that a UX designer has in creating a

highly usable interface is the prior learning of eventual

users. The technical term for this is “transfer of learning.”

Surprisingly, this area of research is a robust area of study

in the skill acquisition research space. An example of

positive transfer is the layout of the controls in an

automobile. When you sit in almost any automobile

produced in the past 50 years, the basic UX configuration

including the steering wheel, brakes, accelerator, and turn

signals have highly consistent locations and operational

attributes, all of which are familiar and thus result in

“positive transfer.” However, you will almost always end up

searching high and low for UX elements that do not take

advantage of positive transfer. These usually relate to the

secondary control interfaces like heat/AC, ventilation,

radio, Bluetooth, GPS, interior lights, USB connector and

the like. What does all this have to do with a slightly tacky

app game that has strained the patience of millions of

users? A lot, actually.

It turns out that a UX designer has to work relatively hard

to produce an interface model that has virtually no positive

transfer from other user experiences with similar or even

highly dissimilar games or devices. This is exactly what Mr.

Nguyen has done in the creation of the basic

control/display design of Flappy Bird. As far as we can

determine, tapping a touch screen to control the vertical

motion of a small, animated object that is driven by a

relatively complex physics model has not been utilized

widely (or narrowly) before… hence no transfer, much less

positive transfer. One does not realize the newness of this

interaction design until attempting fine motor control of

the bird in a vertical location on the first few trials. Where

this lack of transfer becomes painfully apparent is some 2

hours later when one has been playing the game

repeatedly and not passed the 4 pipe. The shocking

discovery of hidden complexity is in direct contradiction to

the initial impression of simplicity presented to the user

when encountering the app’s initial interaction screen

shown below. What could be more simple than tapping to

control a flaky little bird? Lack of transfer is not the only

reason that Flappy Bird is so complex. There is more, and

what remains is also surprising.

th

CDC

In the field of human factors engineering science there is a

simple concept known as control/display compatibility

(CDC). The concept sounds technical but is in fact

embedded in everything we do to navigate the world

around us. Like positive transfer, the presence or lack of

CDC has a major impact on whether or not a given device

is complex or simple to operate. CDC is simply a measure

of the relationship between a device’s control inputs and

the resulting display of information that flows from those

inputs. In operational terms, we say a device has high CDC

if the physical input action results in an expected and easy

to interpret output action. For example, a pencil has very

high CDC because, as you grasp and push the pencil

across a piece of paper, the control actions are equivalent

to what you expect and see (the display actions) on the

paper. On the other hand, Mr. Nguyen, creator of Flappy

Bird, has created the equivalent of a torture chamber in

terms of CDC. As an expert in man-machine systems, I

marvel at the simplicity with which he has created

staggering levels of complexity in a way that is exceedingly

hard, if not impossible, for those who use the device to

detect. Exactly what does this mean?

When we undertake common actions, we expect a familiar

response on the part of the device. For the uninitiated this

can be thought of as “feedback.” Press the letter “a” on

your iPhone and the letter “a” shows up on the screen in

the next text position. These types of human-initiated

actions are known as “skill repertoires.” They are formed

by repeated interactions with things in our world and

comprise millions of interactions repeated over and over.

These special types of skills become massively, almost

irreversibly, hardwired into our cognitive processes and

are so automatic in their execution that fooling with them

can and does cause all manner of upset in our ability to

interact with a device or software application. In Flappy

Bird, there is not only poor CDC but outright mind-bending

disruption of what we expect as we attempt to control the

behavior of the object (Bird) to achieve productive levels of

performance in the game. The root cause of this upset is

the simple use of a tapping action to control the vertical

motion of the bird.

It turns out that our skill repository for tapping results in

the expected delivery of a simple instantaneous action on

the device like adding a character, link or object. Tapping

on a touch screen is in the same skill repository as a

button push on traditional devices from decades past. It is

actually slightly different because there is no button travel

to reinforce the control action, but this is supplemented by

audio and display action feedback on the device. iOS and

Android devices possess this exact interaction model.

Human factors research shows that tapping on a touch

screen in place of button pushing results in somewhat

lower performance due to the removal of physical key

actions. But the touch screen has many offsetting benefits.

To a great extent, the complexity of achieving success with

Flappy Bird is found in the use of a finger tap to control the

vertical motion of an object that is driven by a physics

engine with virtually no relationship to what our minds

expect from a typical screen tap or button push. This form

of disconnect creates a sort of traffic jam in our neural

pathways as our brain is expecting the device to deliver

back a response we recognize but instead the device pops

a tacky, small, pixelated bird up and down, moving in a

way that our mind recognizes as being associated with a

tossed object as it accelerates up, slows, stops and

accelerates back down. This might not seem like a big

deal, but in the end, what the designer of Flappy Bird is

asking your cognitive processes to do is rewire a

fundamental skill repository in order to achieve success in

the game. Because the human information processing

system is so profoundly capable of dealing with changes in

the environment, we solve this by throwing a lot of new

resources at the CDC problem, attempting to control the

Bird to eventual gain. A demonstration of just how

upsetting this is to your skill acquisition capabilities is

revealed in the amount of time it takes to even begin to

move down the power law of practice curve. It takes

sometimes hours of play to have any measure of control

through the use of finger tapping while visually monitoring

the status of the Bird programmed by way of a befuddling

physics algo. Whether you realize it or not, your skill

acquisition system is going into tilt from the beginning. The

most surprising aspect of this design, when viewed by an

expert in the field, is how the design creates high levels of

cognitive complexity while maintaining user engagement.

Thinking of user engagement, it is interesting to note that

this type of skill acquisition conflict is the exact opposite of

the interaction model found in Angry Birds

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/why-angry-birds-

is-so-successful-a-cognitive-teardown-of-the-user-

experience/), in which the sling shot draw-back motion

and release are beautifully matched with our skill

repositories for those behaviors. The CDC in Angry Birds

is, for the most part, of the highest level, which objectively

contributes to its success in major ways. There are other

factors that make Flappy Bird hideously complex. I’ll

mention only one more before returning to the game.

Zero errors allowed

In the field of man-machine interface design (UX design

based on science) there are rules of practice which one

violates at risk of professional credibility. These rules have

evolved over decades of research on how to improve the fit

between all manner of men and machines ranging from

the B1 bomber to the iPod. At the center of such rule

systems is the concept of error tolerance. Simply stated, a

suitable human interface with technology should allow for

both error detection and error correction. Systems that are

missing appropriate levels of these attributes can be,

among other things, frustrating, complex, irritating and in

some cases seriously dangerous. They are also generally

difficult to learn rapidly, as such systems do not allow for

practiced correction of actions directly in the so-called

control loop, which means they do not allow for learning to

correct one’s mistakes and trying it again.

There are various reasons why error tolerance is a critical

aspect of such design problems but the primary driver is

the variability in the human operating system and the

increasing complexity of technology. While we (humans in

general) are the most profoundly flexible and clever

technology, we are somewhat unpredictable and error

prone. This is especially true when certain factors are

present in our direct environment such as stress, certain

types of distractions and emotional upsets. As a general

matter, we also lack all manner of quality control in terms

of how we deal with the world around us. This is the

primary reason generations of engineers have tried

(without success) to automate out the messy human

component in technology. Historically, man-machine

systems that have low or no error tolerance eventually

come to a rather tragic end. There are historically

significant disasters that were, at the heart of the matter,

failures in error tolerance. The meltdown of the reactor at

Three Mile Island or the meltdown at Chernobyl are well

known case studies, as are a multitude of major airline

disasters in which pilots failed to detect and correct errors

in systems created without such flexibility in mind.

A fascinating aspect of the game created by Mr. Nguyen is

that it affords virtually NO error tolerance. It is about as

devoid of such functions as one can create. At no point in

the user’s interaction with the game can they correct

errors without complete loss of achievement. This is like

creating an aircraft that, every time the pilot did even the

smallest thing incorrectly, the plane exploded in a fireball

reigning debris over Manhattan. In Flappy Bird, you are

either in or you are out. This game is the most brutal

example of no error tolerance. Should you get to 5000

points and miss an obstacle, you are back to ZERO…as in

start over. If you correct the flight of your Bird in any way

other than what is required to clear the next obstacle, your

score is toast. But yet, inexplicably, millions apparently play

this game for untold hours. This leads to the ultimate

question…WHY do we do this, especially when the game

design violates all of the central tenets of great UX design?

I have a theory.

The reward system

We know, going back a few decades, that the human

operating system is driven by two forms of motivation.

Extrinsic motivations are those which psychologist frame

as relatively superficial and related to the acquisition of

things. Then there are intrinsic motivations, which are

related to internal satisfactions like learning new skills,

making new friends, having the respect of your peer group.

In the real world, motivations are complex combinations of

intrinsic and extrinsic factors. You buy a new house in a

neighborhood where you make great new friends who love

to play tennis, which raises your tennis game and leads to

awards, which raises your position in your peer group. In

this simple example one can see that motivation often

interlinks factors in complex and surprising ways. Before

we go too far with this line of thinking, Flappy Bird does

none of this. It is simply about achievement in a peer group

and a second factor I will discuss shortly. Certainly you are

never going to use the tapping/Bird-flying skill acquired in

achieving success again, and you are not going to share

your wisdom with peers because teaching others how to

achieve success on a zero error tolerant system is almost

impossible. So what is the motivation here?

(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LasVegas-

Casino.jpg)

Las Vegas

Recently there has been a bevy of research studies looking

into the cognitive science of gambling and more

specifically how the design of various gambling casino

environments impact all manner of human-mediated

gambling behaviors. This is insightful stuff when thinking

about why someone would spend untold hours attacking a

low quality app-based game (Flappy Bird) with no

apparent redeeming value. The answer I suspect is

correlated with the underlying psychophysical impact of

certain gambling technologies that have been around for a

long time. It goes like this.

What is the single most popular gambling machine or table in most

casinos? Would it surprise you to know that for the most part it is the

lowest risk slot machine? More gamblers interact with and stay at these

machines for hours on end than any other gaming option offered by

most casinos. Why is this the case? Let’s list the attributes of a typical

slot machine: apparently very simple mental model with low levels of

skill required to play, highly repetitive interaction model that does not

appear to improve with repetitions of play and finally, virtually no error

detection or error correction option possible. When playing the slots you

are either in or you are out. Win or lose and return to ZERO on the next

play cycle. Slots at the low end are designed to convey both simplicity of

interaction and low cost of engagement (dollar slots, for example). The

most important aspect of a slot machine as an interactive technology is

how rapidly the machine resets for the next attempt. It is instantaneous.

Lose a dollar, put in the next as fast as you can put in the next chip. It is

interesting to note that a major factor in improving the profitability of slot

machines was the introduction of automatic credit card charges in place

of inserting coins. Less physical and cognitive effort means faster cycle

times and greater winnings for the house and sometimes the gambler.

Fully electronic slots removed the lever and replaced it with buttons

leading to further optimization.

So enough with the slot machine; it is Flappy Bird we are

interested in. It should be clear that the similarities

between the interactive framework of the slot machine and

those of the Flappy Bird game are striking. At the end of

the day, it is likely that some of the same cognitive and

motivational factors that drive slot machine use also drive

engagement with Flappy Bird. The exact mix is

unknowable but the overall framework is predictive. We

play hours of Flappy Bird because it is fast and with each

cycle there is apparently very low commitment, so we

continue on working toward higher levels of achievement

which in both cases can only be tagged as extrinsic

rewards: one delivers chips, the other delivers bragging

rights. This, however, is not the end of the story. One factor

remains. (Note: these systems come at a cost.)

Image

citation: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LasVegas-

Casino.jpg

(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LasVegas-

Casino.jpg)

The challenge of simplicity

Let’s return to the beginning. There has been significant

and interesting new research over the past decade on how

our cognitive systems process information on a sub-

second time frame. Much of this work shows that we make

judgments about a very wide range of things around us

based on this first impression, which often takes place on a

pre-cognitive basis. In other words, we navigate the world

around us in terms of assessing the things we interact

with, oftentimes without these decision reaching the level

of actual conscious processing. When they do reach the

level of conscious processing, our minds are often made

up. We judge whether or not a website is trustworthy or

well designed in sub-second processing of our first time

seeing the system. These decisions are highly persistent

and often do not show signs of either decay or change

once they are formulated in our minds. One can see by

looking back on our initial discussion about the

simplicity/complexity deceit that when a given device or

interface is initially judged to be simple, as in the design of

the Flappy Bird first interaction sequence, it is likely that

those who have experienced this impression continue to

believe that the game is in fact simple and that it is their

own expertise that makes it less so, even though we know

from this analysis that the game is designed to be

deceitfully complex if not nearly impossibly so. Mr. Nguyen

used many other subtle cues including the pixelated

graphic design of the game, tacky colors and the crude

animations to further convince those seeing the game for

the first time that it is dead simple when it is, by design,

hideously complex (http://bgr.com/2014/02/11/flappy-

bird-interview-difficulty/).

What was learned?

In producing a simplified cognitive teardown of Flappy

Bird, we see that promise of simplicity can be surprisingly

powerful and that complexity can be created in

surprisingly simple ways. We see that one can design in

complexity in much the same way one can design out

complexity. We learned that the machine attributes that

drive the use of slot machines are probably highly

correlated with the motivational factors that keep us

working for hours on Flappy Bird, hoping to reach a

winning level. Although, just as in playing the slots, one is

never really sure what winning is in real terms.

Without much of a stretch, one can see that there are significant and

likely profound lessons in the success of Flappy Bird, which has recently

been pulled from app stores (http://www.newsweek.com/flappy-bird-

creator-says-his-game-was-too-addictive-228803), leaving many

wondering why (http://recode.net/2014/02/11/the-flap-over-flappy-

comic/). Some of these lessons are easily understood and others much

less so, but in the end, Mr. Nguyen deserves a round of applause for

promising simplicity, delivering brilliant complexity and sustaining our

motivations beyond all reasonable expectations. This is no trivial game.

Acknowledgements: This post was completed with help

from Emily Fisher.

Our Most Popular Recent UX Long-Form Blog Posts

If you missed any of our recent posts, here they are.

Milestones and Missteps UX/UI Design Review for 2013:

Winners and Losers… Not the Usual Suspects

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/milestones-and-

missteps-in-ux-design-for-2013-winners-and-losers-not-

the-usual-suspects/)

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/breaking-bad-vs-facebook-10-

things-walts-meth-lab-and-zucks-facebook-have-in-common/)Why

Candy Crush Saga is So Successful and Popular But Will Never Be an

Angry Birds: A Cognitive Tear Down of the User Experience (UX)

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/why-candy-crush-saga-is-so-

successful-and-popular-but-will-never-be-an-angry-birds-a-cognitive-

tear-down-of-the-user-experience/)

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/important-peer-

reviewed-and-informally-published-recent-research-on-

user-interface-design-and-user-experience-ux-design/)

User Interface Design and UX Design: 50 Important

Research Papers Covering Peer-Reviewed and Informal

Studies

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/important-peer-

reviewed-and-informally-published-recent-research-on-

user-interface-design-and-user-experience-ux-design/)

User-Centered Design in the New World of Complex

Design Problems

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/user-centered-

design-in-the-new-world-of-complex-design-problems/)

Follow us on Twitter @PulseUX

(https://twitter.com/PulseUX)

Follow us on Facebook

(https://www.facebook.com/MauroNewMedia)

Disclaimer: MauroNewMedia receives no compensation of

any type from companies, products or individuals covered

in this post. The opinions expressed in this review are

those of the primary author, Charles L Mauro CHFP.

32Share

Subscribe to email updates

10 Comments

Steve Whetstone

February 17, 2014 at 2:22 am

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/why-flappy-bird-is-

was-so-successful-and-popular-but-so-difficult-to-learn-a-

cognitive-teardown-of-the-user-experience-ux/#comment-

643)

Very smart analysis and an interesting read.

.

I’m curious why are you using the concept of

“transfer” instead of the concept of a “mental

model”. is there a key distinction between the two

that makes one concept better, or maybe it’s just

me coming from a different background and

exposed to different terminology that led me to

expect “mental model” discussion of that point?

.

I suggest that the sub-second visual processing

(aka visual hierarchy and gestalt) have some

intrinsic affect on complexity. That is to day that

visual complexity contributes to some degree to

cognitive complexity and vice versa. I’m assuming

you know and agree, but didn’t want to

complicate the article with the digression.

Reply

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/why-

flappy-bird-is-was-so-successful-and-popular-

but-so-difficult-to-learn-a-cognitive-teardown-of-

the-user-experience-ux/?

replytocom=643#respond)

Charles L Mauro

February 17, 2014 at 6:17 am




644)

Steve: you are quite correct in that visual

processing does of course impact cognitive

processes. My intent in this simple piece was to

proffer simple view of a complex problem. Mental

model formation is technically another field of

study compared to transfer of learning but both

are related to mental model management which

you correctly point out in your comment. Thanks

for responding to our post.

CM

Reply






OwlGames24 (http://owlgames24.com/)

March 6, 2014 at 9:28 am




647)

Amazing article! Yes, Flappy Bird was very

popular but have no future

Reply






Mike

June 6, 2014 at 12:52 pm




652)

I loved your blogs regarding Angry Birds, Flappy

Bird and CCS. It’d be interesting to hear your take

on Minecraft or on the UI of some ‘successful’ free

open source tools such as Blender (FUE screams

at you to run away) or GIMP (unengaging).

Thanks for your keen insights.

Reply






Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your Name *

Name *

Email *

Email *

Website

Website

Comment

Comment*

Submit

Pulse UX Blog | Theory, Analysis and Reviews for User Experience Design

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/important-peer-reviewed-and-informally-published-recent-research-on-user-interface-design-and-user-experience-ux-design/)(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/apple-

v-samsung-appeal-ruling-huge-win-for-design-patents/)

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/why-angry-birds-is-so-successful-a-cognitive-teardown-of-the-user-experience/)

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/what-us-airways-flight-1549s-ditching-in-the-hudson-river-teaches-companies-about-how-to-create-world-class-user-interface-design-solutions/)

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/why-the-music-industry-doesnt-have-a-prayer-against-itunes/)

(http://www.mauronewmedia.com/blog/how-new-theories-in-human-information-processing-explain-the-meltdown-on-wall-street/)

Contact: MauroNewMedia, 23 East 73rd Street, Suite 5F, New York, NY 10021 212-249-3683Copyright 2017 MauroNewMedia, Inc. All rights reserved.

Why Flappy Bird Is / Was So Successful And Popular But So ...€¦ · single largest asset that a...

Documents

Transcript of Why Flappy Bird Is / Was So Successful And Popular But So ...€¦ · single largest asset that a...